Modeling compositional heterogeneity

Systematic Biology

Volumn 53, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 485-495

  Foster, Peter G ^a  

^a DEPARTMENT OF LIFE SCIENCES   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Compositional heterogeneity; Markov chain Monte Carlo; Maximum likelihood; Model assessment; Model selection; Phylogenetics

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CLASSIFICATION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DNA BASE COMPOSITION; METHODOLOGY; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PHYLOGENY; PROBABILITY; STATISTICAL MODEL;

BASE COMPOSITION; BAYES THEOREM; CLASSIFICATION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MARKOV CHAINS; MODELS, GENETIC; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PHYLOGENY;

EID: 3242701529     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10635150490445779     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Akaike, H. 1974. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans. Autom. Contr. 19:716-723.
2. Bollback, J. P. 2002. Bayesian model adequacy and choice in phylogenetics. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19:1171-1180.
3. Conant, G. C., and P. O. Lewis. 2001. Effects of nucleotide composition bias on the success of the parsimony criterion in phylogenetic inference. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18:1024-1033.
4. Eisen, J. A. 1995. The RecA protein as a model molecule for molecular systematic studies of bacteria: Comparison of trees of RecAs and 16S rRNAs from the same species. J. Mol. Evol. 41:1105-1123.
5. Embley, T. M., R. H. Thomas, and R. A. D. Williams. 1993. Reduced thermophilic bias in the 16S rDNA sequence from Thermus ruber provides further support for a relationship between Thermus and Deinococcus. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 16:25-29.
6. Felsenstein, J. 1981. Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: A maximum likelihood approach. J. Mol. Evol. 17:368-376.
7. Foster, P. G., and D. A. Hickey. 1999. Compositional bias may affect both DNA-based and protein-based phylogenetic reconstructions. J. Mol. Evol. 48:284-290.
8. Galtier, N., and M. Gouy. 1998. Inferring pattern and process: Maximum-likelihood implementation of a nonhomogeneous model of DNA sequence evolution for phylogenetic analysis. Mol. Biol. Evol. 15:871-879.
9. Galtier, N., N. Tourasse, and M. Gouy. 1999. A nonhyperthermophilic common ancestor to extant life forms. Science 283:220-221.
10. Gelman, A. B., J. S. Carlin, H. S. Stern, and D. B. Rubin. 1995. Bayesian data analysis. Chapman & Hall/CRC, London.
11. Goldman, N. 1993. Statistical tests of models of DNA substitution. J. Mol. Evol. 36:182-198.
12. Goldman, N., J. P. Anderson, and A. G. Rodrigo. 2000. Likelihood-based tests of topologies in phylogenetics. Syst. Biol. 49:652-670.
13. Green, P. J. 1995. Reversible jump Markov chain Monte Carlo computation and Bayesian model determination. Biometrika 82:711-732.
14. Gupta, R. S. 1998. Protein phylogenies and signature sequences: A reappraisal of evolutionary relationships among archaebacteria, eubacteria, and eukaryotes. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 62:1435-1491.
15. Hasegawa, M., H. Kishino, and T. Yano. 1985. Dating of the human-ape splitting by a molecular clock of mitochondrial DNA. J. Mol. Evol. 22:160-174.
16. Huelsenbeck, J. P., B. Larget, and D. Swofford. 2000. A compound poisson process for relaxing the molecular clock. Genetics 154:1879-1892.
17. Huelsenbeck, J. P., and B. Rannala. 1997. Phylogenetic methods come of age: Testing hypotheses in an evolutionary context. Science 276:227-232.
18. Huelsenbeck, J. P., and F. Ronquist. 2001. MrBayes: Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics 17:754-755.
19. Huelsenbeck, J. P., F. Ronquist, R. Nielsen, and J. P. Bollback. 2001. Bayesian inference of phylogeny and its impact on evolutionary biology. Science 294:2310-2314.
20. Jukes, T., and C. Cantor. 1969. Evolution of protein molecules. Pages 21-132 in Mammalian protein metabolism (H. Munro, ed.). Academic Press, New York.
21. Lake, J. A. 1994. Reconstructing evolutionary trees from DNA and protein sequences: Paralinear distances. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 91:1455-1459.
22. Larget, B., and D. L. Simon. 1999. Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms for the Bayesian analysis of phylogenetic trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 16:750-759.
23. Lockhart, P. J., C. J. Howe, D. A. Bryant, T. J. Beanland, and A. W. Larkum. 1992. Substitutional bias confounds inference of cyanelle origins from sequence data. J. Mol. Evol. 34:153-162.
24. Lockhart, P. J., M. A. Steel, M. D. Hendy, and D. Penny. 1994. Recovering evolutionary trees under a more realistic model of sequence evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 11:605-612.
25. Lopez, P., D. Casane, and H. Philippe. 2002. Heterotachy, an important process of protein evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19:1-7.
26. Mooers, A. Ø., and E. C. Holmes. 2000. The evolution of base composition and phylogenetic inference. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15:365-369.
27. Murray, R. G. E. 1991. The family Deinococcaceae. Pages 3733-3744 in The prokaryotes, vol. 4 (A. Balows, H. G. Trüper, M. Dworkin, W. Harder, and K.-H. Schleifer, eds.). Springer, London.
28. Penny, D., B. J. McComish, M. A. Charleston, and M. D. Hendy. 2001. Mathematical elegance with biochemical realism: The covarion model of molecular evolution. J. Mol. Evol. 53:711-723.
29. Posada, D., and K. A. Crandall. 1998. ModelTest: Testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics 14:817-818.
30. Rosenberg, M. S., and S. Kumar. 2003. Heterogeneity of nucleotide frequencies among evolutionary lineages and phylogenetic inference. Mol. Biol. Evol. 20:610-621.
31. Rzhetsky, A., and M. Nei. 1995. Tests of applicability of several substitution models for DNA sequence data. Mol. Biol. Evol. 12:131-151.
32. Sokal, R. R., and F. J. Rohlf. 1981. Biometry. W. H. Freeman, 2nd ed.
33. Steel, M. A. 1994. Recovering a tree from the leaf colorations it generates under a Markov model. Applied Mathematics Letters 7:19-24.
34. Suchard, M. A., R. E. Weiss, and J. S. Sinsheimer. 2001. Bayesian selection of continuous-time Markov chain evolutionary models. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18:1001-1013.
35. Sullivan, J., and D. L. Swofford. 1997. Are guinea pigs rodents? The importance of adequate models in molecular phylogenetics. J. Mammal. Evol. 4:77-86.
36. Swofford, D. L. 2002. PAUP*. Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods), Version 4. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.
37. Swofford, D. L., G. J. Olson, P. J. Waddell, and D. M. Hillis. 1996. Phylogenetic inference. Pages 407-514 in Molecular systematics, 2nd ed. (D. M. Hillis, G. Moritz, and B. K. Mable, eds.). Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.
38. Tarrío, R., F. Rodriguez-Trelles, and F. J. Ayala. 2000. Tree rooting with outgroups when they differ in their nucleotide composition from the ingroup: The Drosophila saltans and willistoni groups, a case study. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 16:344-349.
39. Tarrío, R., F. Rodriguez-Trelles, and F. J. Ayala. 2001. Shared nucleotide composition biases among species and their impact on phylogenetic reconstructions of the Drosophilidae. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18:1464-1473.
40. Whelan, S., P. Liò, and N. Goldman. 2001. Molecular phylogenetics: State-of-the-art methods for looking into the past. Trends Genet. 17:262-272.
41. Yang, Z. 1996. Maximum-likelihood models for combined analyses of multiple sequence data. J. Mol. Evol. 42:587-596.
42. Yang, Z., N. Goldman, and A. Friday. 1994. Comparison of models for nucleotide substitution used in maximum-likelihood phylogenetic estimation. Mol. Biol. Evol. 11:316-324.
43. Yang, Z., and D. Roberts. 1995. On the use of nucleic acid sequences to infer early branchings in the tree of life. Mol. Biol. Evol. 12:451-458.